September 6, 2012

Here's the whole page frozen in time right now, but let me close in on these 4 photos:

"You will feel it" is — of course — a line from Clinton's convention speech, but illustrated with the finger pointed up, it takes us back to the Lewinsky days, when we heard about finger-shaped things inserted into vaginas and a finger was famously wagged at us for imagining that he had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

Right underneath Bill Clinton — double meaning right there — is Hillary Clinton, and she's getting "snubbed." The snub is by the Chinese VP, but we imagine other snubs. Additional lines under Hillary's picture have her "dubbed" a "sneaky troublemaker."

And, speaking of troublemakers, we're reminded that Hillary is "half a world away" "[a]s Bill speaks." In case that's not a sharp enough nudge to get you to think about things Bill might do while his wife is away, your eyes are drawn quickly to the swelling bosom of Scarlett Johansson, who is one of "Barack's Angels," who will be on the convention stage tonight. (Scarlett's golden hair rolls and flows all down her breasts, while Hillary's hair, in that other pic, is dull, lank, and flat.) And what else are these beautiful young women up to in Charlotte where Hillary is half a world away? In Drudge tease, the trio of beauties "makes push."

And that push? You will feel it.

IN THE COMMENTS: Paul Zrimsek said:

And here I thought the true caption for the Scarlett Johanssen photo was the line above it, not the line below.

Yes, because when you can't criticize the speech you can always rely on bringing up a subject that 70% of Americans could not care less about. Clinton is still widely liked. No former [living] Republican presidents are.

George H.W. Bush, gets a 59% rating, with 34% saying they have an unfavorable view of the first President Bush, who was elected to the White House in 1988. Bush was defeated in his bid for a second term by Bill Clinton, who has a 66% favorable rating in the poll. Only 31% say they hold an unfavorable rating of Clinton. - CNN poll

AnnNot sex, but an affair with an intern and all the noise that was caused to impeach him for lying about it. Sex in general provides plenty of room for humor. But in the case of Drudge it is not just humor he is using. It is a snide response to a good speech. It's like he is saying, "yeah yeah he had a good speech but that finger! Ah sex and lies. lest we forget!" Most of Drudge's audience does not find sex as interesting in the same way as you do.

I'm guessing you live in some conservative enclave? Are you kidding? Clinton's favorable rating is higher than it has ever been as of the Gallup poll this morning. The Gallup poll is not an ignorant lie.

Reagan was the only former president [in the last 50 years] that could compete with that.

The bottom line is Clinton is still a political force. Former Republican presidents are not.

The guy is off the charts in terms of narcissism. I still think that George Will pretty much put the capstone on him in saying that, while "[he] wasn't the worst President we ever had, he was clearly the worst person to serve as President."

Matt said... The bottom line is Clinton is still a political force. Former Republican presidents are not.

Hysterical.

Hey, remember when it was seen as tacky for former Presidents to campaign?

But you're here bragging, idiot.

Oh, and only you would think that trotting out a President who said he wants to balance the budget, cut cap gains taxes, and end welfare as we know it (after signing DOMA), on the stage with the President who opposes all those things is some sort of "political force"

"Most of Drudge's audience does not find sex as interesting in the same way as you do."

Maybe, but given the emphasis on accusing politicians of lies during last week's RNC, it is interesting to have politicians speak at the DNC who not only lie in the present but have actually been caught blatantly and irrefutably lying in the past.

The DNC is featuring its liars, and saying that nobody is interested in the fact they are liars.

Which is indeed interesting.

Liars often have good speeches, for they know what tickles the ears of the gullible and those committed to the lies.

What's really funny is you seem to have no idea what you are talking about politically of otherwise. Obama does not oppose Clinton's positions. They may not be in lock step on every single issue but who cares. Do they need to be? Both are Democrats and both support a vision for America that is quite different from the one Romney and the GOP wants. Are you aware of that? I guess not.

Also when was it ever tacky for former presidents to campaign? Did I ever say that it was? No I did not. But the GOP can't trot out Bush because they don't want the voters to make an association between him and Romney.

Re you first post I am guessing the fact that Clinton is disbarred makes everything he does and says irrelevent? Even though he still raises huge amounts of cash and helped Obama get elected last time? Maybe more presidents need to be disbarred. Heh.

It apparently never occurs to many Progs and Libs (and certain Cons, for that matter) to question their assumptions, even when those assumptions are proven wrong. And never, ever will they let being proven wrong on Topic A lead them to question their belief on Topic B. They need certain things to be true to hold it all together.

Moving goalposts must be fun for Dems, since it's all they do, DWS the reigning champ.

I suspect goalpost moving, occupying, chanting vapid slogans, claiming victimhood and re-defining commonly used words is a palliative to the pain of Cognitive Dissonance.

If Bill Clinton is such a political force, why is Obama the one running for re-election instead of Hillary?

Because BILL Clinton is a political force mainly for himself - not Hillary. His political force did not necessarily rub off on Hillary. He can only help but he can't make people vote for a stand in for him. Let's just say his word is not gold but it doesn't hurt.

But the GOP can't trot out Bush because they don't want the voters to make an association between him and Romney.

As much as it pains me, I actually have to agree with this. But it's not because of anything specific that Bush did; rather, the Matts of the world spent eight years lying, demonizing and slandering Dubya, who was - wrongly, as it turns out - confident that the American people would see through their propaganda.

Bush is poison. But it's because he was too much of a gentleman to go medieval on the Democrat / MSM sleaze complex.

Give it another 5, 10 years and Bush will take his place in the above average of presidents. He's anywhere from a C+ to a B-. You can see that in how many of his programs, policies and ideas that Obama followed-through on.

Bush could work with Democrats, even while people like Reid and Pelosi were lying about him. Obama has never been able to be as good and able to work across the aisle as Bush, which will be one of the major parts of his legacy.

But I always want that. I learned in a book that fingers have no muscles. Just tendons in there pulling things around. Creepy innit. His finger actually surprised me because it is so BIG and bony a BIG skeletal bony finger BAM! right there, suddenly the whole screen is one giant bony finger, and whatever point he was making was completely unfingerworthy and whatever made that speech great is lost on me unless you consider stringing together debatable axioms an accomplishment nobody so far has made clear to me why that speech was so good, all I got out of it was a giant skeletal finger shoved up. It freaked me out. Right properly out.

The BBC guy was swooning but said nothing useful. He is a reporter but he said nothing other than how great it was and moving and wonderful and splendid and his undisguised admiration is displayed, of his desire to be a part of it, but he said nothing at all about the speech itself. A deaf person would have given a more accurate description of content, that I am certain.

I imagined myself interpreting and it starts out okay one thing after another, another and another, with no apparent logical overarching theme in sight, a string of axioms. Premises delivered as conclusion show up in translation, and conclusions as axiom do too, so premises as axiom are sure to show, these speeches are loaded with premise as axiom, and it does make you feel a bit stupid when so many targets are hit but no central point is landed.

The woman speaking with a Texas accent was another annoying translation. That was just plain hard on the ears and I quickly gave up. They couldn't pay me enough to stick that out. The way she barked throughout. It was awful. I never did understand what point she made, she won a suit, it appears, she was instrumental in getting some woman-related equality thing signed against evil Republican resistance until finally virtuous Obama gloriously signed it. I think. But how am I to know that with my shriek filters and my bark filters on high? It's amazing anything at all came through.

I did not notice the facial surgery, but I did notice the face. I imagined pancake makeup. A lot of it. Troweled on. The flat side, not the dentine side, that's for tiles and it leaves tracks. No, the flat side of the trowel and heavy liberal application. Leave a hole for the mouth and two holes for the eyes, and that's it. The trick is applying an even layer of extremely heavy pancake that covers EVERYTHING with as few passes as possible, then quickly scoop out three holes. Inspiration by Cecilia Jimenez.

I did not have sexual relations with that women because the meaning of 'is' still needs to be defined. Furthermore, Obama is the great compromiser, except for those eve-ill wah-scully we-pub-wiccans who stalled him at every turn and wanted him to fail because Rush Limbaugh told them too. Why? Because I'm awesome that's why. I'm Bill Clinton and I approve this finger, er, uh, this massage. Oh wait.

I did not notice the facial surgery, but I did notice the face. I imagined pancake makeup. A lot of it. Troweled on. The flat side, not the dentine side, that's for tiles and it leaves tracks. No, the flat side of the trowel and heavy liberal application. Leave a hole for the mouth and two holes for the eyes, and that's it. The trick is applying an even layer of extremely heavy pancake that covers EVERYTHING with as few passes as possible, then quickly scoop out three holes. Inspiration by Cecilia Jimenez.

Chip, do you have an HDTV? Cause if you do, then seeing peoples make-up and how horrible they can look is not at all pleasant. Especially if broadcasts are in 720p or 1080i/p. Also, did you know that there is make-up created specifically for HDTV broadcasting and film?

Seeing Bill and his upheld finger and then the picture of Scarlet Johansson didn't make me think Bill and Scarlet might be meeting tonight. It reminded me of the relationship between Johansson and Obama.

Matt said... Because BILL Clinton is a political force mainly for himself - not Hillary. His political force did not necessarily rub off on Hillary. He can only help but he can't make people vote for a stand in for him. Let's just say his word is not gold but it doesn't hurt.

Clinton's finger is a reminder to the taxpayers of what an unpleasant rectal exam they are going to get if the democrats win in November. Dry. Not even the decency to use lube or give the taxpayers a kiss.

Obama does not oppose Clinton's positions. They may not be in lock step on every single issue but who cares. Do they need to be? Both are Democrats and both support a vision for America that is quite different from the one Romney and the GOP wants.

The GOP wants prosperity and respect for America and all US citizens. Glad to see you admit that Democrats oppose prosperity for American citizens.

But here's the thing:Clinton presided over a good economy.Obama opposes all the things that brought about that good economy.

So if they are not in opposition over economic policy, then Clinton gets no credit for the great economy he presided over. If Clinton gets credit for the great economy he presided over, then he and Obama are diametrically opposed in economic policy.

JayYou are showing a profound misunderstanding of politics. You say I should read a history book but it seems rather evident from your posts that you aren't following your own advice. Note that where many in the Republican party stand today would not be agreement with many of the bills that Reagan signed into law - yet Reagan still stands as a pinnacle in the GOP.

What I said earlier still rings true because of this same idea. Regardless of where Obama and Clinton stand on particular issues they still want to beat the GOP and Clinton is still a big part of the Democratic party. I guess you disagree with that?

Also, did you know that there is make-up created specifically for HDTV broadcasting and film?

My Hollywood friend tells me that the latest is spray-on makeup. He says that Michelle wore that for her speech. I'd bet anything Ann Romney did too. I was struck by the difference I saw when she spoke vs. when I saw her seated during the rest of the convention.

Come on don't play games. You know exactly what I mean when I say that Obama and Clinton support a vision for America that is quite different from the one Romney and the GOP wants.

BOTH Obama and Romney want prosperity for America but both have different ways of wanting to achieve that. I can respect that and I hope you can too. Clearly there is a difference between the two parties. There ALWAYS has been.

Also you are flat wrong that Obama opposes ALL those things that brought about a good economy. I mean, Bush presided over a bad economy too. Did he oppose all those things that brought about a good economy? Did he hate America? Is he solely to blame for the bad economy. No. Even I would not say that. There is plenty of blame to go around.

"My Hollywood friend tells me that the latest is spray-on makeup. He says that Michelle wore that for her speech. I'd bet anything Ann Romney did too. I was struck by the difference I saw when she spoke vs. when I saw her seated during the rest of the convention."

They now have TV cameras that strain out the wrinkles. All the newsies and talkies use them. Surely they have one on the podium at DNC and had one at RNC.

So Bill Clinton had spray on super double secret makeup plus the wrinkle smoothing camera. Must have really needed them.

It's interesting that Clint Eastwood, the movie start, has been about the only one who didn't make himself up to look ridiculously young.

Also you are flat wrong that Obama opposes ALL those things that brought about a good economy.

Obama wants a good economy, but his words and deeds have demonstrated that he doesn't know what it takes to help nudge the engine along.

The Joe the Plumber run-in, and the "didn't build that" speech (although the most damning part was the "so smart, so hard-working" part that rarely gets brought up) are clear indicators of his thought process.

I wouldn't say they want us completely dependent on government. At least anymore than Republicans want to completely eliminate government. Both are extremes that neither party wants. What Democrats want is a strong middle class. The government can help with that for some of the folks in poverty or who would fall into poverty. We can agree to disagree but such things as Medicare, Social Security, The GI Bill, Pell Grants, etc have helped America.

I mean, Bush presided over a bad economy too. Did he oppose all those things that brought about a good economy?

George W. Bush is also the only President since Reagan to put policies into place that pulled the nation out of a recession during his term of office.

And despite the 2001 recession being worse than the 2007 recession, his policies got the economy going strong in just about 2 years, with full employment recovery in less than 3 years.

The 2007 recession didn't get fixed under W's watch because Congress didn't send him the right laws/policy adjustments to sign. He believed (foolishly, in retrospect) that the Dems had a mandate, so he should sign anything but the most egregiously incorrect of laws.Now W gets blamed for the economy that Obama's party advocated and passed.If he had vetoed 3-4 bills and threatened to veto more, it would have been different.

But the clear difference between the 2001 and 2007 recessions are that Bush enacted conservative policies in 2001, and the Democrat Congress enacted liberal policies in 2007 through the present, and we have exactly the economy you get when you put liberals in charge of a recession.

I wouldn't say they want us completely dependent on government. At least anymore than Republicans want to completely eliminate government.

Well as I said, the Democrat video "We are all the government" and the Julia ad certainly seem like they do. Can you point to any GOP ad calling for anarchy? Because that's the elimination of government.

What Democrats want is a strong middle class. The government can help with that for some of the folks in poverty or who would fall into poverty. We can agree to disagree but such things as Medicare, Social Security, The GI Bill, Pell Grants, etc have helped America.

Interestingly enough I don't see GOP calls for eliminating those things. Unless of course reforming them to sustainability mean elimination.

The problem is the Democrats want a govt. that can do all those wonderful things but only have the 1% pay for it. That my friend is not sustainable.

Shiloh said that Scarlett Johansson and Eva Longaria are both hot. Yeah, but they're completely different versions of hot and I submit that a man who really loves women goes one way or the other. Take away the egalitarian propaganda and a man in the Scarlett Johanson camp doesn't really find Eva Longaria hot and vice versa. Is this important? YES IT IS!

That's crazy talk. Both are very high on the beauty scale. Men might perfer blonds or prefer brunettes, or prefer redheads, but a Venn diagram where these two are sorted by appearance, they both occupy the intersecting hot area.

Colonel AngusThe problem is the Democrats want a govt. that can do all those wonderful things but only have the 1% pay for it. That my friend is not sustainable.

That is simply not true. We all pay taxes. What we want is for taxes to go back up to where they were in the 1990's. The only reason the focus is on the top 1%is because of the Bush [now Obama] tax cuts, which don't seem to have done the magic trick the government thought they would.

Can you point me to the Julia ad and the government ad you speak of? I tend to turn off government ads because they are pure rhetoric. Thanks.

Matt said... What we want is for taxes to go back up to where they were in the 1990's. The only reason the focus is on the top 1%is because of the Bush [now Obama] tax cuts, which don't seem to have done the magic trick the government thought they would

In the 1990's, the "middle class" you claim to care so much about, paid more in taxes than they do today.

Further, the only reason you focus on the top 1% is because of envy, ignorance, and class warfare.

EMDAnd what will that do? Certainly not solve the deficit and debt problems.

True, but neither will cutting taxes for the wealthy. BTW there is no way Medicare and SS will be eliminated no matter what Ryan has said in the past [a view he is quickly turning away from now that he is a national candidate].

Note I said 'taxes' I didn't specify federal taxes. But nonetheless plenty of people are paying federal taxes as well.

In the 1990's, the "middle class" you claim to care so much about, paid more in taxes than they do today.

So what? Is that a bad thing? I never said paying taxes was a bad thing. I want taxes to be raised.

Why?Why is his your first inclination?Haven't you learned anything from the European debacle?Cut spending. To the bone. THEN have a conversation on taxes.

Wealth building is sole source of economic expansion. Create an atmosphere where people will want to create wealth, then discus how to tax it. With the wealth creators.Raising taxes solves nothing except to drive the wealth creators away.

Not of the same kind. Consumption taxes, certainly. But there are a great many more people in the cart than there are pulling.

What we want is for taxes to go back up to where they were in the 1990's. The only reason the focus is on the top 1%is because of the Bush [now Obama] tax cuts, which don't seem to have done the magic trick the government thought they would.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - you want 1990's tax rates? Fine. But only if we go back to 1990's budgetary levels. Somehow the "let's go back to the 19-whatever tax rates" crowd goes awfully silent when that deal is proposed.

Tax increases were on the table; Republicans were willing to give up hundreds of billions. It wasn't until Democrats yanked spending off the table and demanded more tax increases that the Republicans walked.